UNBIASED - UNBIASED Politics (2/6/25): U.S./Gaza Takeover Comments, Politico's $8.2M Government Payout, CBS Releases Harris Interview Transcript, the Controversy Behind USAID, and More.

Episode Date: February 6, 2025

Get the facts, without the spin. UNBIASED offers a clear, impartial recap of US news, including politics, elections, legal news, and more. Hosted by lawyer Jordan Berman, each episode provides a recap of current political events plus breakdowns of complex concepts—like constitutional rights, recent Supreme Court rulings, and new legislation—in an easy-to-understand way. No personal opinions, just the facts you need to stay informed on the daily news that matters. If you miss how journalism used to be, you're in the right place. In today's episode: USAID: What Is It and Why So Much Controversy? (2:24) DOGE Claims to Have Made Significant Cuts. Can It Actually Make Cuts? (10:22) Trump Proposes US Take Control of Gaza After War and Rebuild (15:39) CBS Releases Transcript from Harris Interview Amid $10B Lawsuit From Trump (26:47) President Trump Signs 'Keeping Men Out Of Women's Sports' Executive Order; Here's What It Says and How It Has To Do With Immigration (29:28) Quick Hitters: Updates to the Federal Buyout Offer, DOJ Sues Chicago Over Sanctuary City Laws, Pam Bondi Confirmed as Attorney General (35:05) Rumor Has It: Politico Received $8.2M From Government Last Year (36:56) Critical Thinking Segment (38:40) Listen/Watch this episode AD-FREE on Patreon. Watch this episode on YouTube. Follow Jordan on Instagram and TikTok. All sources for this episode can be found here.  Information for Rett Syndrome Super Bowl 50/50 Raffle: Purchase tickets through donations sent via Venmo to @Brittany-Fane (In case you need it, the last four digits of Brittany's cell number are 7122) Include your cell number in the Venmo description and you will receive a text with your ticket numbers within 24 hours. Three winning raffle tickets will be pulled at the end of the 1st quarter and announced via Instagram Live on @B.Cioffi517 Winners will also be contacted directly within 24 hours of the drawing. Winner ticket holders will receive a portion of the net proceeds. Total proceeds will break down as follows: 1st ticket pulled: 12.5% 2nd ticket pulled: 12.5% 3rd ticket pulled: 25% IRSF: 50% GOOD LUCK AND THANK YOU!! ISRAEL/GAZA EPISODE (PART I) ISRAEL/GAZA EPISODE (PART II) Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

You hear that? Ugh, paid. And done. That's the sound of bills being paid on time. But with the BMO Eclipse Rise Visa Card, paying your bills could sound like this. Earn rewards for paying your bill in full and on time each month. Rise to rewards with the BMO Eclipse Rise Visa Card.

Terms and conditions apply. Welcome back to Unbiased, your favorite source of unbiased news and legal analysis. Welcome back to Unbiased. Today is Thursday, February 6th. We have a lot to talk about. I am, you know, sometimes I have these days where podcasting days specifically where there's just so much going on that by the time the day is over,

I can't even think straight. And today is one of those days. So let's hope I get through this episode without too many hiccups. But first, I do wanna take an opportunity to quickly tell you about a very special fundraiser that ends on Sunday. Therefore, it's my last chance to tell you about it.

I did speak about it on Instagram, but I have not yet talked about it on the podcast I wanted to give you guys a chance to get in on it if you wanted to so four years ago My husband and I started a 5050 Super Bowl raffle for the benefit of the International Rett syndrome foundation For those that don't know Rett syndrome is a rare neurological condition that affects just about syndrome is a rare neurological condition that affects just about every aspect of life for those that are diagnosed with it, from eating to breathing to walking to talking and everything in between. A family friend of ours gave birth to a son named Barrett and just before Barrett's first birthday, he was diagnosed with Rett syndrome. He is such a fighter as is anyone who has Rett syndrome and as is anyone who knows or takes care of someone with Rett syndrome. Currently

there is no cure for Rett but the International Rett Syndrome Foundation is trying to change that. So like I said my husband and I started the raffle for the benefit of the IRSF and after that the raffle was taken over by Barrett's family. It has grown so much since then. The current pot this year is actually over $16,000, which is incredible because that means IRSF is going to get at least 8,000 of that to put towards finding a cure. Like I said, the last day to buy tickets is Sunday, which is of course the day of the Super Bowl. And I will post all of the instructions in the episode description for those that want to take part so that'll be in this episode description,

obviously. There will be three total ticket winners, so three tickets pulled on the night of the Super Bowl and you could be one of those winners. So if you're wanting to enter, just go and head to the episode description. Like I said, all of the instructions will be there. Thank you so, so much in advance and of course, good luck. Okay, let's talk about some news, shall we? I want to start this episode by talking about USAID. There's been a lot in the news lately about USAID and I have also received a ton of questions from all of you asking me to explain what USAID is all about and why there's so much controversy behind it. So let's do that. USAID stands for the US Agency for International

Development. Its stated purpose is to provide assistance to countries in recovering from disasters, trying to escape poverty, and engaging in democratic reforms. USAID was created in 1961 by President Kennedy via executive order, and at the time, he wanted this independent agency to oversee international spending post-war because he felt as if the State Department was too bureaucratic. Over time, USAID has evolved to focus more so on things like nutrition, education, democracy, and free markets. A review by the Congressional Research Service last month found that USAID provided assistance to roughly 130 countries.

The top 10 recipients in order of who received the most assistance are Ukraine, Ethiopia, Jordan, Congo, Somalia, Yemen, Afghanistan, Nigeria, South Sudan, and Syria. However, USAID has its fair share of both supporters and critics. Critics argue that USAID is filled with fraud and waste and that its expenditures don't align with US interests, whereas supporters argue that USAID is necessary to provide essential aid to millions of people across the world and further argue that dismantID is necessary to provide essential aid to millions of people across the world, and further argue that dismantling it would potentially allow for countries like China and Russia to gain more influence across the world if they become the leading humanitarian

assistance providers. Now, we've really only been hearing through the media that the critics of USAID are, you know, President Trump, Elon Musk, some Republican lawmakers, and those within the Trump administration. But heads of foreign nations have also spoken out against USAID, too. As an example, the president of El Salvador said, quote, Most governments don't want USAID funds flowing into their countries because they understand where much of that money ends up. While marked as support for development, democracy, and human rights, the majority of these funds are funneled into opposition groups, non-governmental organizations with political agendas, and

destabilizing movements. At best, maybe 10% of the money reaches real projects that help people in need, but the rest is used to fuel dissent, finance protests, and undermine administrations that refuse to align with the globalist agenda. Cutting the so-called aid isn't just beneficial for the United States, it's also a big win for the rest of the world." End quote. Now, I know in that statement, the president of El Salvador said most countries don't want this funding. Just take that with a grain of salt because you do of course have some countries that appreciate USAID and don't want to see it go away. Obviously the countries that receive the biggest bulk of funds from USAID benefit the most.

And like I said, some of the funds do really help humanitarian needs. But I just wanted to give you that different perspective from someone not necessarily in the Trump administration or the United States. A former USAID official said, and this is kind of like the opposing viewpoint, the US former USAID official said, to be very explicit about what is being turned off, the sorts of things that are being stopped are programs that support 20 million people on life-saving HIV treatment right now. That is a huge risk to those individuals, but it's also a risk to the health of the world

more broadly." End quote. Now, when you look at the numbers provided by Congress, of the roughly $43 billion USAID budget in fiscal year 2023, roughly 17 and a half billion went to humanitarian needs and health, and roughly 17 billion went to humanitarian needs and health and roughly 17 billion went to governance

Meaning funding for government related issues and projects in foreign nations So the numbers speak for themselves some of the money You know that USAID provides it goes towards humanitarian needs and some of the money goes towards these other governmental matters And the truth of the matter is, like most things in life, the agency isn't perfect, right? In fact, when President Biden was still in office, the Office of the Inspector General, which is an independent oversight role, released a report on USAID, which specifically called out the corruption, fraud, and sexual exploitation and abuse within USAID, writing, quote,

a recent government accountability office report found that USAID had not taken the initial steps outlined in a 2019 memo from the Office of Management and Budget to identify risks of working with contractors who engage in human trafficking. While the agency communicated federal anti-trafficking requirements to contracting officials through training and guidance, compliance with requirements was inconsistent. In addition, USAID has not yet taken a systematic approach to managing risks in contracting to better support the U.S. zero-tolerance policy for human trafficking." Outside of human trafficking, the Office of the Inspector General also found that in recent years, 45% of USAID programs

failed to achieve half of the intended results, but contractors were still paid in full. So the opinions, and I tell you all this information to tell you that the opinions on USAID are all across the board. Some want to leave it in place and leave it as it is, others want to leave it, but reform it and as it is. Others want to leave it but reform it and make cuts to certain areas and redistribute that money elsewhere within USAID.

Others want to gut it completely. And it's not necessarily like everyone on the right feels one way and everyone on the left feels another way. But to give you a little more insight into the administration's plans, you know, at least the plans that we know of or the plans that were being told, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who is now acting administrator of USAID, said his agenda isn't about ending the programs that USAID does per se. He said there are things that we do through USAID that we should continue to do and we will continue to do, that makes sense. We'll have to decide is that better through the State Department or is that better through something like a reformed USAID. President Trump has also similarly said that the administration will be taking a look at the expenditures of USAID and cutting those that don't serve the interests of the United States and then potentially having the State Department usurp the role of USAID. And I know a lot of you have specifically asked

about Elon Musk's comment about USAID funding the lab in Wuhan that some say leaked the COVID virus. Here's what I can tell you. One, we haven't seen official documentation that would prove or disprove that claim, right? However, two, what's being said is that USAID gave $5 million to EcoHealth Alliance, which is a non-governmental agency that does a lot, but it collaborated with several institutions, including the Wuhan Institute of Virology, to conduct research on bat coronaviruses. This partnership

involved collecting samples from bats and studying their viruses to understand the risk of spillover into human populations. But there's obviously a lot of controversy as to whether that research is linked to the pandemic's origin. Some agencies here in the United States, like the CIA and FBI, have said the origins of the pandemic likely stem from a lab leak, but other international agencies have said that's not true. So that's where Musk's comment is coming from, that $5 million that was provided to EcoHealth Alliance. To wrap this up, this move by the administration all goes back to Trump's America First Plan,

which consists of putting America first and not spending funds on things that don't advance America's interests. But speaking of Elon Musk and his role in the government's, or I should say his role in government affairs, let's talk about Doge and some of the things that Doge has been reporting. Remember, Doge was created as a non-federal advisory agency to maximize governmental efficiency and productivity. Its main goal is to cut wasteful spending by advising the Office of Management and Budget which spending should be cut. Over the course of the last week or so, DOGE has been making a lot of claims that are causing a lot of people to wonder whether DOGE even has the authority to be doing what it's doing.

So let's take this step by step. Starting with some of DO it's doing. So let's take this step by step, starting with some of Doge's claims. Number one, it said it canceled 85 contracts related to DEI resulting in around $1 billion in savings. It also said it canceled a DEI scholarship program in Burma leading to around 45 million in additional savings. Two, it said over the past week, it had canceled 22 underutilized federal leases, leading to around 44.6 million in savings.

Three, it said it canceled 36 more contracts across six different federal agencies, resulting in another 165 million in savings. Four, it said it canceled 12 consulting contracts in the Government Services Administration and the Department of Education, leading to another 30 million in savings and another 78 contracts in the Government Services Administration and the Department of Education, leading to another $30 million in savings, and another $78 million in the categories of DEI non-performing media,

and consulting, leading to another $110 million in savings. So I know these claims can be quite confusing because the question is, can DOGE cut these things? But I just want to be clear that DOGE itself cannot make budget cuts, it cannot cancel leases, it cannot cancel contracts on its own. And that's because it is a non-federal agency. That's what it was created as. So for one, budget cuts require congressional approval. Spending is a congressional authority, and therefore anything that has to do with spending has to go through Congress. So that's not something DOGE can do. Now DOGE can make recommendations as to where to make budget cuts, but it cannot make those budget cuts itself. Along similar lines, DOGE can recommend to various agencies and departments,

like let's say the Department of Education, which contracts to cancel for purposes of saving money, but it's ultimately up to those departments and agencies themselves to issue that cancellation. If it turns out that Doge is canceling contracts and cutting budgets, that would certainly run afoul of not only the Constitution, but also federal law and therefore be subject to legal challenges and, you know, reversed. Now another question a lot of people have asked is whether Doge has the proper authorization to access specifically Treasury Department payment systems, which contain Social Security numbers, home addresses, and other personally identifiable information.

As I reported on Monday, the Treasury Secretary had granted Doge affiliates what's called read-only access to payment systems for purposes of finding out where cuts can be made within the department. And in that episode, I said, this is a legal gray area, right? This non-federal advisory agency and its affiliates having access to these kinds of records. And I said, this is something that's going to have to play out in the courts. Well, today, a judge signed off on a temporary agreement that limits the sharing of sensitive Treasury data. So this agreement was brokered as a result of a lawsuit that was filed on Monday by labor unions who received payments from the federal government and who argued that non-federal employees should not

have access to their personal information. While that lawsuit proceeds, this agreement was entered into to, quote, preserve the status quo, end quote, until arguments are heard by the judge. Per the terms of the agreement, the two Treasury employees who were the ones that were granted read-only access to this treasury data can retain access, but they cannot share any quote unquote sensitive data with anyone outside the agency. A DOJ attorney who argued on behalf of the Trump administration in Doge told the judge yesterday that the two employees were made special employees of the Treasury Department and were granted read-only access to the payment system, but hadn't shared the data that they

reviewed with anyone outside of the Treasury Department, including Musk. These two employees are affiliated with Doge, as I've said, and were brought on by the Treasury Department shortly before President Trump took office for purposes of looking into Treasury Department payment systems. So from here, the judge will have to hear arguments as to whether she should grant or deny the plaintiff's request for an injunction, which would effectively ban anyone from Doge, including potentially these two Treasury employees, from accessing Treasury Department records. But for now, these two employees can continue accessing the Treasury Department records.

They just cannot share any sensitive data with anyone outside of the department. So let's take our first break here. When we come back, we'll talk about President Trump's comments about taking control of Gaza and much, much more. Sick of dreaming smaller? Sick of investing but not seeing your money grow? comments about taking control of Gaza. Get yours, Questrade. Welcome back. On Tuesday, the president and Israel's prime minister, Netanyahu, chatted in the Oval Office and then held a press conference. And during that press conference, the president discussed the current state of Gaza, as well as a proposal that consisted of

relocating the people currently living in Gaza and the United States taking control of Gaza as well as a proposal that consisted of relocating the people currently living in Gaza and the United States taking control of Gaza for purposes of redeveloping it. I'll play the clip for you in a few minutes because I think it's best just to hear what he said rather than potentially relaying something out of context but before I do that here's what I will say. If you don't know, some people are not entirely familiar with the history of the conflict between Israel and Gaza. Some people are.

So if you're not familiar, the question of who is entitled the land that is Gaza is incredibly controversial. Both sides feel very passionately about it. Israel feels that the land which Gaza sits upon is their homeland. And guess what? sort of the Palestinians So that's what the fight has been about for thousands of years In fact in this episode description I will link an episode that I released about five days after the Israel Hamas war started

It is a 45 minute long episode I basically cover everything you need to know about the history of the conflict between the Israelis and Palestinians. I highly recommend listening. I Will say the episode came out before I was on YouTube. So you will have to it's audio only you can't watch it on video But that episode seriously if you have ever found yourself wondering what the heck is going on over there What the fight is about that is the perfect place for you to start So like I said, I'll link it in the episode description of this episode But for now, let me just say that both sides feel very strongly about their positions.

Now to add a little color as to why the president is talking about redeveloping Gaza, let's talk about the current state of Gaza. It has now been 15 months since the start of the war on October 7th, 2023. The debris produced by this war is 17 times the total from all Israel-Gaza conflicts since 2008. It is estimated that the removal of this debris could take up to 21 years. The UN estimates that two-thirds of the buildings have been destroyed or damaged, and the majority of

areas running water and electricity are non-existent. In southern Gaza, there is a bit more humanitarian aid and services, but not nearly enough for all 1.8 million Gazans. Since the start of the war, roughly 150,000 Palestinians have left Gaza, and some may still leave, but most have no intention of leaving, primarily do not only because of financial reasons, but also because of the cultural ties. And again, there's a whole history there. If you want to learn more about it, listen to that episode that I did back

in October 2023. Aside from this current war, though, it's important to note that Hamas took control of Gaza in 2005 after beating Fatah in the elections. Fatah was the political party that led the Palestinians for a long time prior to Hamas. Since Hamas' takeover, the economy in Gaza has crippled, unemployment has skyrocketed, and the military presence within Gaza has only increased. And this is in part because of Hamas, of course, but also because when Hamas took over, because of Hamas, of course, but also because when Hamas took over, both Israel and Egypt imposed a blockade on Gaza, which essentially controlled the goods and the people that flowed in and out. So yes, this war has left irreparable damage, but in the clip that I am about to play, President Trump also talks about the years leading up to this most recent war as reason

for the need to rebuild. So now that you have a bit of context, let's play the clip from the press conference. I also strongly believe that the Gaza Strip, which has been a symbol of death and destruction for so many decades and so bad for the people anywhere near it, and especially those who live there and frankly who's been really very unlucky. It's been very unlucky, it's been very unlucky, it's been an unlucky place for a long time, being in its presence just has not been good and it should not go through a process of rebuilding and occupation by the same people that have really stood there and fought for it and lived there and died there and lived a miserable existence there.

Instead, we should go to other countries of interest with humanitarian hearts, and there are many of them that want to do this and build various domains that will ultimately be occupied by the 1.8 million Palestinians living in Gaza, ending the death and destruction and frankly bad luck. This could be paid for by neighboring countries of great wealth. It could be 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8, 12. It could be numerous sites or it could be one large site. But the people will be able to live in comfort and peace and we'll make sure something really spectacular is done. They're gonna have peace, they're not going to be

shot at and killed and destroyed like this civilization of wonderful people has had to endure. The only reason the Palestinians want to go back to Gaza is they have no alternative. It's right now a demolition site. This is just a demolition site. Virtually every building is down. They're living under fallen concrete that's very dangerous and very precarious.

They instead can occupy all of a beautiful area with homes and safety and they can live out their lives in peace and harmony instead of having to go back and do it again. The U.S. will take over the Gaza Strip and we will do a job with it too. We'll own it and be responsible for dismantling all of the dangerous unexploded bombs and other weapons on the site, level the site and get rid of the destroyed buildings, level After those remarks, the president was asked if troops would go, US troops would go to Gaza to secure the area, to which the president responded that we would do whatever is necessary. However, this morning, the president wrote on True Social, quote, the Gaza Strip would be turned over to the United States by Israel at the conclusion of fighting.

The Palestinians, people like Chuck Schumer, who by the way is the Senate minority leader, not Palestinian, would have already been resettled in far safer and more beautiful communities with new and modern homes in the region. They would actually have a chance to be happy, safe, and free. The U.S., working with great development teams from all over the world, would slowly and carefully begin the construction of what would become one of the most greatest and most spectacular developments of its kind on earth. No soldiers by the US would be needed. Stability for the region would reign."

As for Netanyahu, he did not explicitly endorse Trump's plan per se, but he did lay out three of Israel's goals, which were one, destroy Hamas's military and governing capabilities, two, secure the release of all hostages, and three, ensure Gaza is never again to threaten Israel. And in laying out those three goals and in addressing the president at the press conference, Netanyahu said, quote,

"'I believe that your willingness "'to puncture conventional thinking, "'thinking that has failed time and time and time again, your willingness to think outside the box with fresh ideas will help us achieve these goals." Okay, so now let's talk about why President Trump wants to do this. Well, as we talked about, Gaza is currently in a very destructed state. But according to the president, Gaza is also a valuable waterfront area with opportunities to create jobs and housing for Palestinians. This same sentiment has been echoed by Trump's son-in-law and former foreign policy advisor, by the way, Jared Kushner.

Trump has also suggested that US ownership and redevelopment would turn the Gaza Strip into, quote, the Riviera of the Middle East, end quote. As far as what this would look like in real life and how this would play out, we know that the president said it would consist of assuming full ownership, dismantling unexploded bombs and weapons, leveling and demolishing it and then reconstructing it.

And we also know that as far as payment goes, Trump supports the United States paying for the actual redevelopment, but suggested that neighboring countries would pay for one or more domains within their own countries for purposes of relocating the 1.8 million Gazans during redevelopment. Importantly, though, these neighboring countries that would obviously play a big role in the redevelopment, like Egypt and Jordan, have rejected Trump's relocation proposal, calling it ethnic cleansing.

On that note though, let's talk a little bit about public and global opinion. As I mentioned earlier, the situation between Gaza and Israel is very intense. Both sides feel very strongly. A poll done by the Jewish Policy Institute found that about 70% of Israelis are in support of this plan, some of whom they say support it while also considering it unrealistic, others calling it a practical plan that should be pursued. Then of course you have the other 30% of Israelis that don't support the plan. The Palestinian Authority, which is the governing body in the West Bank, a Palestinian territory in Israel, rejected Trump's proposals saying it would be a

violation of international law. UN rights chief Volker Turk said the same on Wednesday that the plan would violate international law because international law clearly states that any forcible transfer in or deportation of people from occupied territory is strictly prohibited. Saudi Arabia released a statement just hours after the press conference that affirmed their position that establishing Palestine as a state is firm and unwavering. This goes back to the two-state solution that some support. And Saudi Arabia also said they reject displacing Palestinian people from quote-unquote their land. Some European countries also expressed concern about the proposal with officials from Britain, France, Ireland, and Spain raising

questions about what the plan might mean for Palestinians and their human rights. And Britain specifically has expressed a desire to collaborate with Arab Spain raising questions about what the plan might mean for Palestinians and their human rights. And Britain specifically has expressed a desire to collaborate with Arab countries when it comes to providing aid to Palestinians while allowing Palestinians to stay in Gaza during the rebuild. So that's what we know as of now. But I do just want to be clear, the only way this proposal could actually happen is if Israel took full control of Gaza by quote unquote winning the war and

then turned it over to the US because keep in mind Hamas, which is the governing authority in Gaza, would never do that. So it would have to be Israel winning the war, gaining control of Gaza, and then giving control of Gaza to the United States. But even then there would obviously be humanitarian and legal questions as to whether you could displace those living in Gaza while the redevelopment happens. So there's still a lot that needs to take shape here, but I did wanna fill you in on what was said at the press conference.

In some other news, the Federal Communications Commission and CBS have released transcripts of Kamala Harris's 60 minutes interview during her 2024 presidential campaign. You may remember this interview stirred up some controversy because President Trump had accused CBS of editing Harris's response in the aired interview to paint her in a more favorable light. That claim was brought about when CBS aired two different responses from Harris to the same question about Israel on two different programs, Face the Nation and 60 Minutes. Trump subsequently sued CBS for $10 billion, claiming the network deceptively edited the interview

to help Harris during the election. At the time, other media networks, including CNN, were calling on CBS to release the transcript, something that networks typically will do post interview, but CBS chose not to do it until now. So in the transcripts that were released today, Harris's answers were edited in two instances during the interview in regard to Israel. The first was when Harris was asked what the US could do to end the war between Israel and Hamas.

The transcript shows a 140-word response, but when the 60 Minutes interview aired, editors cut the answer down to just 56 words. In the second instance, Harris was asked about Israel's prime minister charting his own course and defying the Biden administration. Harris' original answer was 179 words. In the interview, CBS only aired 27 words.

I do have the interviews as well as the transcript linked in the sources section of this episode, which can always be found either on my website, jordanismylawyer.com or unbiasednetwork.com, both will take you to the same place, or you can find the link to the sources in the episode description. So that's just in case you wanna see for yourself where those discrepancies lie. CBS issued a response to the transcript release

saying in part, quote, "'We are posting the same transcripts and videos "'of our interview with Vice President Kamala Harris "'that we provided to the transcript release saying in part, quote, we are posting the same transcripts and videos of our interview with Vice President Kamala Harris that we provided to the FCC. They show, consistent with 60 minutes, repeated assurances to the public that the 60 minutes broadcast was not doctored or deceitful. In reporting the news,

journalists regularly edit interviews for time, space, or clarity. In making these edits, 60 minutes is always guided by the truth and what we believe will be the most informative to the viewing public, all while working within the constraints of broadcast television." So from here, the FCC will hold hearings over Trump's allegations and his complaint and then either issue a decision down the road or in the meantime, Trump and CBS can always settle.

Okay, time for our second and final break. When we come back, we'll talk about the president's new executive order titled Keeping Men Out of Sports. We'll do quick hitters, rumor has it, and more. Welcome back. Yesterday on National Women and Girls in Sports Day, the president signed an executive order which is titled Keeping Men Out of Women's Sports, and has a stated goal of protecting athletic opportunities for women and girls in the United States.

So keep in mind, an executive order is a directive for officials, departments, and or agencies within the federal government. Executive orders are not laws. So with any executive order, you'll have a purpose, and then you'll have a directive or multiple directives to carry out that purpose. In this case, the purpose is to oppose male competitive participation in women's sports by rescinding all funds from educational programs that deprive women and girls of fair athletic opportunities. The directives are for the

Education Secretary, the DOJ, the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy, the Secretary of State, and the Secretary of Homeland Security. Specifically, these officials are to take certain actions to ensure that biological men are not playing in women's sports, whether that's the Education Secretary prioritizing Title IX enforcement actions against schools, whether that's the Assistant to the President for Domestic Policy convening representatives of major athletic organizations to promote policies consistent with this order, or whether that's the Secretary of State withdrawing from international support of programs that base female sports categories on gender identity rather

than biological sex. All of those are directives laid out in the order that are meant to carry out the order's purpose. So let's talk through the rationale behind the order because each executive order typically lays out the reasons, the authority, and the position of the federal government. In this order, the president cites to Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972. Originally what Title IX of the Education Amendment said is that schools that receive federal funds cannot discriminate on the basis of sex. And while this was enacted really to protect women specifically from discrimination, the effect of it and the way it's worded, right, provides equal opportunity for both male and

female students to participate in educational programs, which includes sports. And that's just because Title IX doesn't specifically use the word women. It just says sex, no discrimination on the basis of sex. However, like I said, the purpose, despite not singling out women, was to give female athletes the same number of resources and opportunities in educational programs as men, something they have not always had. And it worked. By 2016, one in every five girls in the United States played sports, whereas pre-Title IX, that number was one in 27. But over time, Title IX evolved. So in the 80s and 90s, the Supreme Court

issued a decision that clarified that sexual harassment and assault are forms of discrimination for purposes of Title IX. Later in 2011, President Obama issued guidance saying that Title IX protected LGBTQ students. And then building upon that guidance, most recently, President Biden issued a final rule, which has more enforcement effect than, you know, just simply guidance. And that rule added discrimination on the basis of sex stereotypes, sex characteristics, pregnancy or related conditions, sexual orientation and gender identity to the list of Title IX prohibitions. And when that happened, Trump said that if he were elected, he would do away with that. So that is what he did via the executive

order signed yesterday. Trump wrote in that order, quote, Under Title IX of the Education Amendments Act of 1972, educational institutions receiving federal funds cannot deny women an equal opportunity to participate in sports. As some federal courts have recognized, ignoring fundamental biological truths between the two sexes deprives women and girls of meaningful access to educational facilities. Therefore, it is the policy of the United States to rescind all funds from educational programs that deprive women and girls of fair

athletic opportunities, which results in the endangerment, humiliation, and silencing of women and girls and deprives them of privacy." And just as a quick related note, those cases that Trump cited to out of the federal courts regarding biological truths are actually both 2024 cases that overturned Biden's Title IX expansion to gender identity and sexual orientation. In the sports world, the NCAA has said since the signing of the order that the order provides a clear national standard and that it will be taking steps to align their policy to the directive. One interesting part of the order and a section worth mentioning is this section that applies to immigration because the order is of course titled keeping men out of women's sports.

But then there's this provision that directs the Secretary of Homeland Security to review and adjust if needed policies permitting admission to the United States of males seeking to participate in women's sports and issue guidance preventing such entry to the extent permitted by law. The order cites to a specific provision of the Immigration and Nationality Act, which prevents individuals who have intentionally lied or hidden important information to gain entry into the United States from achieving immigration. In other words, Trump is saying that the act of identifying with a gender contrary to that person's biological sex would be grounds for DHS to deny that individual's visa application if that person was seeking a visa to participate in sports here in the United States. Now, with all of this said, and as with almost all changes to Title IX in the past, This order will almost certainly face legal challenges. So we will have to wait and see how this plays out in the courts, perhaps even the Supreme Court.

And we will revisit the story when we get to the critical thinking segment. But for now, let's move on to quick hitters, starting with a couple of updates to the federal buyout situation. Last week, we covered the email that was sent to federal employees offering them a buyout of their position. The original deadline to accept that offer was 1159 p.m. Eastern time tonight,

but that deadline has now been pushed. So the first update is that the deadline is now at least Monday. On Monday, the judge will decide whether to grant a more long-term temporary restraining order, but for now, the deadline is Monday. The second update is that earlier this week the buyout was extended to CIA employees who were initially exempt from the offer. And then the third update is that as of today it is being reported that approximately 40,000 of the 2.3 million employees eligible for the offer have accepted it. That number could change, like I said, that's just the number being reported, but the individuals that do accept the offer will be paid with benefits through September 30th.

In some other news, the DOJ has sued the city of Chicago over its sanctuary city laws. This is likely to be the first of many similar lawsuits filed by the DOJ, but the lawsuit alleges that the county and city laws enacted by Cook County and the city of Chicago reflect their intentional effort to obstruct the federal government's enforcement of federal immigration law and to impede consultation and communication between federal, state, and local law enforcement officials that is necessary for federal officials to carry out federal law. Among other provisions, the challenge laws prohibit officials from complying with federal immigration detainers and prohibit officials from providing certain information about non-citizens. And speaking of the DOJ, since we last spoke, Pam Bondi was confirmed as attorney general.

After a 54 to 46 vote in the Senate, Bondi will now head the DOJ. Let's move on to Rumor Has It, my weekly segment where I cover recent rumors submitted by all of you on Instagram and either confirm them, dispel them, or add context. Today we just have one, not due to a lack of rumors, I can assure you, but just because I only had so many hours

to get this episode out. Rumor has it that the government paid Politico $8.2 million in the last 12 months. This is true. If you go to usaspending.gov, you can actually see what the government spends its money on. And if you look up Politico as a recipient, you can see that Politico has been the recipient of various awards dating back to 2015 when it received its first award of $3,500. By 2017, it received a total annual amount of about $600,000. 2018 was the first year it received over a million, receiving just over $1.5 million. In 2019, it received about the same. In 2020, just over $2.8 million. In 2021, just over $ and a half million in 2022, just over six million in 2023, just over seven

point eight million and in 2024, eight point two million. Various departments within the federal government have provided their share of this funding. You can see that on the website as well. This includes HHS, Department of the Interior, Department of Energy, the Agriculture Department, the Commerce Department, as well as some others. Some of the funds were spent on subscriptions for what's called Politico Pro, which provides in-depth news analysis for people that need to track things like legislation and regulations, but it's unclear what the entirety of that money was spent on because it wasn't all

for subscriptions. Other outlets that have received funds from the government include the New York Times and the Associated Press. Okay, for today's critical thinking segment, let's go back to the keeping men out of women's sports order, specifically the debate over whether trans women should be allowed to compete in women's sports.

I'll give you one argument on each side of the debate, and then I want you to try to come up with two more arguments for each side, okay? So not just the side that you side with, I want you to come up with two more arguments for each side, okay? So those who support keeping transgender women out of women's sports argue that allowing trans women

to compete with biological women provides trans women with an unfair advantage, which allows them to outperform biological women and therefore displaces biological women provides trans women with an unfair advantage, which allows them to outperform biological women and therefore displaces biological women from things like scholarships, records, and podiums. Those who support trans women playing on women's sports teams, however, argue that it is unfair discrimination to limit participation based on gender identity. Now, like I said, I want you to come up with two more arguments for each side of the debate, okay? So two arguments in favor of trans women

being able to participate in women's sports and two arguments against trans women being able to participate in women's sports. This exercise might seem simple, in fact it probably does, but like I always say, in a world where we're constantly being told how and what to think, sometimes it's nice just to remind ourselves, hey, let's exercise our brains

a little bit so we don't forget how to use them, no matter how simple that exercise might be, right? That is what I have for you today. Don't forget that all of the information for the Rett Syndrome 50-50 raffle is in this episode description, and you can find links to my Israel-Gaza conflict episodes there as well. And hey, if you loved what you heard today, it's been a minute since I gave you this reminder. But please don't hesitate to leave my show a positive review on either Apple Podcasts or Spotify. Apple Podcasts actually lets you write a little sweet note. Spotify doesn't, but you can still leave reviews on both platforms.

Those reviews are always very much appreciated. Have a great weekend and I will talk to you on Monday. heart of American football action with Botano. Sign up with Botano and stream your favorite American football teams all season long. Bet while you watch and feel the rush of every play, live and in real time, and enjoy all your favorite sports. Hockey, baseball, soccer, and more. Want to experience the thrill of betting on every play? Tap into Botano now and make every game day exciting. Ontario residents only. Must be 19 or older. Please play responsibly.